1 hr ago
Supreme Court to Hear Pleas Seeking CEC Kumar’s Suspension
The Supreme Court is set to hear petitions about how India’s election body makes decisions.
The petitions say Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar acted without agreement from the other two commissioners.
They ask the court to suspend him while it considers the case.
They also challenge changes to a voter-registration form and some actions connected to voter lists in Goa and West Bengal.
The petitioners say important decisions should be made by the commission together.
They also seek legal action against Kumar and other officials.
The Election Commission says disagreements can happen during its discussions.
It says its orders are lawful and follow established procedures.
The court has not yet ruled on the claims.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear petitions on Monday seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Petitioners allege Kumar made decisions, issued guidelines and approved software changes without the concurrence of the other two election commissioners.
One petition cites objections to electoral-roll revisions and an alleged change to voter-registration Form 6 without the required statutory process.
The pleas also raise concerns about restoring 97 eligible voters in Goa and more than 16.10 lakh appeals filed in the Election Commission’s name in West Bengal.
The Election Commission says differing views are normal and its orders have legal sanction and follow established procedures.
- Who
- Petitioners Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi are challenging actions attributed to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
- What
- The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear pleas seeking Kumar’s suspension and challenging alleged decisions made without the concurrence of the other election commissioners.
- Where
- The Supreme Court of India; the petitions also refer to electoral-roll matters in Goa and West Bengal.
- When
- Monday; the articles do not give a calendar date.
- Why
- The petitioners allege that decisions were made without collective approval and challenge related voter-registration and electoral-roll actions.
Petitioners’ claims
Election Commission’s response
Collective decision-making
Petitioners’ claims
The petitioners allege that Kumar made decisions without the other commissioners’ concurrence, contrary to collective decision-making requirements.
Election Commission’s response
The Election Commission says differing views and observations are a normal part of institutional deliberations and its orders follow established statutory procedures.
Voter-registration changes
Petitioners’ claims
The plea alleges that software changes added ancestral-detail and prior-revision requirements to Form 6 without the statutory amendment required by electoral rules.
Election Commission’s response
The Election Commission says its orders carry full legal sanction; the articles do not give a specific response from it about the Form 6 allegation.
Electoral-roll actions
Petitioners’ claims
The petition alleges problems restoring 97 eligible electors in Goa and says more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the Election Commission’s name in West Bengal without authorisation from the other commissioners.
Election Commission’s response
The Election Commission’s reported general position is that its orders follow established procedures; the articles do not provide a specific response to these particular allegations.
Key facts
- Hearing
- Scheduled for Monday
- Chief Election Commissioner
- Gyanesh Kumar
- Petitioners
- Rakesh Kumar Singh and Shailendra Mani Tripathi
- Bench
- Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana
- Reported objections
- An Indian Express report cited at least 14 objections by the other two election commissioners over the previous 10 months
- Goa allegation
- The petition says software could not restore 97 eligible electors despite directions for verification
- West Bengal allegation
- The petitioner says more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the Election Commission’s name
- Election Commission response
- It says differing views are normal and its orders have legal sanction and follow established procedures
Quotes
Shailendra Mani Tripathi
Petitioner seeking criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials.
“Direct that respondent No.3 (CEC) shall not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner of India pending final hearing of the present petition; direct that during such period, the business of the Commission be transacted by the unanimous decision of respondent Nos. 4 (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu) and 5 (Vivek Joshi); and direct that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made upon the recommendation of a Committee, including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India.”
rediff.com
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring all decisions, guidelines, directives, and software modifications initiated, approved, or implemented under CEC Gyanesh Kumar without full commission concurrence or contrary to the majority opinion of the Election Commissioners as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio.”
telegraphindia.com
Sources
Related news
Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to CEC’s ECI Functioning
Supreme Court Plea Challenges CEC’s Alleged Unilateral Election Decisions
Plea Seeks Prosecution of CEC Gyanesh Kumar Over ECI Decisions
Supreme Court to Hear Petitions Challenging Election Commission SIR Decisions
Petition Seeks Suspension of CEC Over Election Commission Decisions
Supreme Court to Hear Plea on ECI Decision-Making
AISA Says Neha Bora Detained, Then Released in Delhi
Justice Bhuyan Warns Mass Disenfranchisement Threatens Constitution
Justice Bhuyan Warns Against Mass Disenfranchisement in Voting
AISA Says Neha Bora Taken Away During Delhi Protest
